by Steve | Aug 23, 2023 | Features, Sept-Oct 2023
Maxie Dunnam: Revival on the Horizon —
Several years ago, the Good News Board of Directors met in Memphis, Tennessee, and bestowed the United Methodist Renewal Award on the Rev. Dr. Maxie Dunnam. In the previous issue of Good News, we published the first part of our conversation with him and touched upon his spiritual journey as local pastor, social activist, influential author, seminary president, and former world editor of The Upper Room.
Good News’ award is presented to a person that has demonstrated dedication to the renewal of Methodism. It was named after the late Rev. Edmund W. Robb Jr., an unforgettable evangelist and author who served as chairman of the Good News board of directors.
For the occasion of the award presentation in 2016, friends gathered at a Good News dinner at Christ United Methodist Church in Memphis. At the ceremony, the Rev. Rob Renfroe, president and publisher of Good News, accentuated Dunnam’s focus on a Christ-centered ministry, as well as his commitment to civil rights and education for underprivileged children. My colleague also touched upon Dunnam’s winsome disposition.
“When he steps up to a pulpit, within a few words people think to themselves, ‘I like that man. I’d like to be his friend. Or I wish he were my uncle.’ And when people like you, they listen to you and you have a real opportunity to influence them for Christ,” said Renfroe.
“And the reason people like Maxie is because you immediately get the impression that he likes you,” observed Renfroe, a long-time friend. “The reason you love Maxie is because you sense that he loves you.”
Maxie has had a great impact on Methodism because “people know that he cares,” said Renfroe. “So they have listened when he spoke, they have followed when he led, and they have given their time and their talents and their treasure when he has challenged them to a worthy cause.”
The award presentation also celebrated his influence as a faithful delegate to numerous United Methodist General Conferences, as well as his pivotal roles in helping create both the Confessing Movement and the Wesleyan Covenant Association.
“Maxie, by nature, is a lover with a heart of grace. But, there is a commitment to the truth of the gospel that has propelled him into the fray, at times reluctantly,” concluded Renfroe. “And for who he is and for all he has done, we honor him.”
In the previous issue of Good News, we spoke with Maxie about his childhood, call to ministry, his signature on the “Born of Conviction” statement, Bishop Gerald Kennedy, Brother E. Stanley Jones, and the mystery of prayer. What follows is the second-half of our colorful conversation.
– Steve Beard, editor of Good News
########
Because of the [previously discussed] “Born of Conviction” statement, you moved from Mississippi to California in the 1960s. That was a shift for your family.
I was excited about going to something new and fresh. One of our friends – who was not a signer of the “Born of Conviction” statement – was out in California. He had nurtured me in the ministry. We visited him six months before we went. We saw San Clemente and I said, Wouldn’t it be would it be wonderful to live in a place like this? That’s where I planted the church.
What did you learn spiritually on that journey?
I didn’t know anything about anything. That was another confirmation of God’s guidance in a way that you don’t even recognize it until it’s over.
The district superintendent had given us the name of two couples in San Clemente. That’s all we knew and those two couples just took us in and welcomed us. They were happy because they knew they were getting an evangelical pastor.
What that taught us at a deep level is that it really doesn’t matter where you go, God’s people are there – it’s a matter of getting connected with them. Not all of them are on the same level of the relationship, but they know themselves to be God’s people and that was confirmed.
After 10 years of ministry in Southern California, you moved your family to Nashville to work at The Upper Room. Big shift.
The Upper Room was a huge chapter in my life. That’s really when I became what I call a “world Christian.” How I got there is really a mystery. I had begun to lead some retreats and speaking at conferences.
I received a letter from Wilson O. Weldon, the world editor of The Upper Room, saying that they were starting a new ministry that was going to try to resource and engage the readership of The Upper Room – 4 million back then – as a prayer fellowship and get their energy directed.
I just felt, my Lord, I don’t know anything about that.
What year was this?
That would have been 1974. About the same time, I had been involved with some people in Mississippi who were friends and lay people committed on the racial issue – which was a rare kind of thing – and they had become involved with people in Maryland who had a retreat center. We had been in an interview to become the head of that retreat center. It was so attractive because my wife Jerry and I have had a faint, and sometimes passionate, desire to live in a deliberate Christian community. That’s been a thing that has stirred in me through the years and that would have been it.
That ends up being the most exciting thing that you never ended up doing. [laughter]
We got on the plane headed back to California. We hadn’t been in the air 30 minutes before we looked at each other and said, We can’t do that. We both had the same feeling.
It wasn’t but a couple of months later before we got this word from Wilson Weldon at The Upper Room. I think that I’m honest emotionally – and I always try to be honest with other people if I’m involved relationally – when they began to talk about me leading a prayer movement I just said to him, “Look I am not an expert in prayer and I think you’re talking to the wrong person.”
You felt like this was a mistake?
I still have a letter that I wrote them on the plane going back to California telling them that I just didn’t think I was the person for that job because of my weakness in prayer.
The long and the short of it is that they called me and offered me the job. It’s one of the two or three times in my life when I accepted a position that I knew I was incapable of really performing. That’s also what I felt about becoming the president of Asbury Theological Seminary.
Every reader can relate to feeling inadequate. All you have to do is see the phrase “Prayer Specialist” and we all feel inadequate. We’re all amateurs, right?
That’s right. Absolutely.
There’s nothing that we are asked to do “spiritually” – and I put that in quotation marks – that we are capable of doing. We are equipped as we move along and as we are obedient. If we are obedient, we are equipped supernaturally.
That’s really what happened at The Upper Room. We need to be humble enough to recognize our deficiency, to confess it to those who are part of the responsible bodies, and trust that God has other instruments that he’s using to accomplish his will. When they invited me, I had to say, Well, they know what they need better than I do. Both Jerry and I felt that we should do it.
How did your name emerge at The Upper Room?
I tried to find out how in the world they had ever chosen to interview me for that job. Ira Galloway had become the General Secretary of the Board of Evangelism. Ira didn’t know me. And I knew Wilson at The Upper Room didn’t know me.
The General Board of Evangelism had a program where it sent young ministers to Mexico to preach revivals. I was one of the ten they sent to Monterrey, Mexico. The visiting preachers and our hosts would get together every morning for prayer and sharing before we started teaching and preaching at 10 o’clock in the morning. One of the guys on the team was from Texas. He is the one who told Ira, “Maxie is the guy you need to look at.”
Earlier, you used the phrase “world Christian.” What do you mean by that term?
Being in that position at The Upper Room, there is lots of travel involved because we had all these editions all over the globe. That was a tough part of the job, but it was a great part of the job. We visited the different editors all over the world and began to share life with them. For a country boy from Mississippi, California was an eye opener, but this was even beyond that.
I also began to see the expression of the gospel and the church in different ways – and how it was effective and not effective.
I met dynamic Christians – some of them world-class. I met Christians who were laboring in very difficult situations but were radiant and faithful. Some of that became clear when I traveled with Dr. Tom Carruth and Brother E. Stanley Jones at Ashram meetings.
[Editor’s note: Carruth taught on prayer at Asbury Theological Seminary and authored 15 books on the subject. He died in 1991. E. Stanley Jones (1884-1973), of course, was a historic international Christian leader who developed the Christian Ashram movement.]
I am who I am and I’ve done what I’ve done because there’s been three or four big occasions when I was called and I knew I was incapable – but I thought it was a genuine call and that I would be enabled to do the job. We’re enabled as we move out. The Upper Room was a big example of that.
You began at The Upper Room as the director of Prayer Life and Fellowship. You then became the world editor of The Upper Room daily devotional guide. It had a worldwide circulation in the millions at the time and was printed in 38 different languages.
When I went to The Upper Room I was responsible for the area of work that was related to the fellowship of prayer and developing resources. I wasn’t proficient in prayer or spiritual direction. I began to read everything I could read and talk to everybody I could talk to. As a result, I came in touch with the saints of the ages. I saw people in East Germany that were oppressed, but faithful. I saw the prophetic witness of Dr. Peter Storey and Bishop Desmond Tutu in South Africa. We saw the humble saints that were without fame – as well as those with well-known names. Both had deep commitments. I had a chance to be exposed to all kinds of people.
You once had a meeting with a very consequential man: Pope John Paul II.
I met Pope John Paul while I was the editor of The Upper Room and on the board of the World Methodist Council.
What struck you about him?
His humility. Pope John Paul knew he was under a heavy burden and a heavy responsibility but there was nothing haughty about him. Nothing. In fact, quite the opposite. The only reason my picture was taken with him was really accidental. Wherever the Pope goes, there are photographers. I didn’t even know that picture was taken. These photographers post those pictures on bulletin boards all over the place.
I’ve been thinking about Pope Francis, the current pontiff. He’s rare. I’m not sure he’s going to be as popular as others but sometimes he tickles me. I don’t see how a man could even function there – but they have to know that they’re the spiritual head of millions and millions of people.
Agreed. Switching to a different lane of leadership, let’s talk about how you became president of Asbury Theological Seminary.
Again, it was Tom Carruth. I had been invited to serve on the Asbury Seminary board after having been given an honorary degree. I was at Christ Methodist Church in Memphis and I got to know the Asbury community a little bit after being on the board. I discovered Asbury was a place I wish I had gone to for my own seminary education.
Jerry and I went to a meeting with the World Methodist Evangelism to England with Eddie Fox [longtime leader of World Methodist Evangelism] to dedicate the statue of John Wesley feeling his heart “strangely warmed.” We knelt at that statue and prayed. Three months later the Asbury presidency opened up. Six months later I was offered the job.
How did that come about?
I had resigned as chair of the presidential search committee. It was a time of obedience because we could not have been happier at Christ Church. It was dynamic. It was growing. Two of the greatest missional expressions that are going on in Memphis were birthed at Christ Church. It was just a great church and it was growing. The person that teetered me in the direction of being interested in the presidency was Jimmy Buskirk.
Dr. Jimmy Buskirk was a precious soul. He was the long time pastor of First United Methodist Church in Tulsa. He served on the Asbury Seminary board with you. He had also been the founding dean of the School of Theology at Oral Roberts University.
I was happy at Christ Church but Jimmy came to see me and said, “Your ministry, Maxie, at Christ Church is a ministry of addition. If you become the president of Asbury, it’ll be a ministry of multiplication.”
He was right. Pivoting in a different direction, I am going to list some names. Give me your thoughts.
Bishop William R. Cannon (1916-1997).
I have a real love and attraction for people who are themselves – and don’t try to be anything else – but have some uniqueness that just sets them apart. Bishop Cannon was one of those people. When I went to Candler School of Theology in Atlanta, he was the Dean.
He would preach in chapel now and then and I remember two or three occasions when everybody would just remain, just linger – not talking to each other. Our relationship was very loving – it wasn’t formal. When I went to The Upper Room, we had dinner and he said, “Maxie, don’t stay there too long. You need to be preaching.”
Wise advice.
Yeah, beautiful. He didn’t pretend to be anything he wasn’t. But he did emphasize his eccentricities. He was the chair of the General Board of Evangelism. He gave a speech at the Confessing Movement. He was as orthodox as you can get. He was an evangelical – not in the popular sense of the word – but he really wanted people to be won to Christ. There’s a sense in which he really was a lot like Bishop Gerald Kennedy from California. Very different personalities. You never knew how they were going to express their passion.
Dr. William J. Abraham (1947-2021). Our dear Irish friend, Billy, who taught for ages at Perkins School of Theology in Dallas.
First, I felt he died too early. He was one of the best theological leaders we had – as smart as any of the theologians I knew, but he did not let that smartness keep him from communicating the gospel in an understandable way. Our friendship was really growing. We had been friends a long time, but I didn’t see him a lot. I’m sure he knew that I had become the president of Asbury Seminary when he was a primary candidate, but we never talked about it. I get the feeling that Billy would have loved to have been the president of Asbury Seminary. I think he was that kind of leader.
One more mutual friend: Dr. Thomas C. Oden (1931-2016) from Drew Theological School.
There’s a sense in which Tom was a little bit more of a churchman. Tom would have never been the communicator that Billy was – I don’t think he ever was – but their theology is very much the same. They’re both brilliant. Both of them loved the academy – and championed the academy. I don’t think Tom ever wanted to be anything other than what he was.
Tom and Billy rarely faced a battle they weren’t willing to fight.
That’s right. Both of them were fighters but Billy was a feisty fighter. Tom was a conservative fighter.
Let’s talk about the launch of the Global Methodist Church.
I really have come to believe that the Global Methodist Church is an answer to prayer. It isn’t that we’ve been praying for a new denomination – we’ve been praying for revival. I’ve been a Methodist preacher longer than there’s been a United Methodist Church and I have been totally – maybe more than I should have been – committed to the United Methodist Church.
I’ve poured my life into that denomination and the World Methodist Council. I’ve been a part of Methodism and have fought the battles to conserve what the UM Church has always said she was in terms of how we define ourselves. I could have lived basically with the Book of Discipline of the UM Church the rest of my life, except I’d want to change some things about the bishops.
The obvious pattern of the church, it seems to me, developed a strong vocal, very influential liberal presence. That’s not just theological. There was a another group – not evangelical, really – we would really label as “centrist.” I really have been a part of that.
You would consider yourself a centrist?
I have, through the years.
These categories can be confusing, sometimes overlapping.
I’m clearly traditionalist now, but I think it’s because of my pastoral inclination of wanting people to be together. And then I saw the glaring violation of the Book of Discipline with one of our retired bishops performing a same-sex wedding ten years ago in Alabama, and the effort to liberalize the UM Church.
In the southeast, we always seemingly elected bishops that were different than that – we thought. I decided that something needed to happen. I didn’t think about it in terms of division, but I knew it had to be some sort of division and that happened to me at the 2019 special General Conference when the bishops brought the four ways forward.
The bishops themselves didn’t want to consider the traditional one – being what the UM church has said she is, but with more accountability for the episcopacy.
That’s the way I saw it. I left that General Conference just really down.
I had a small group of people scheduled to go to Cuba. There’s been a revival going on in Cuba for a long time. I really needed that and it was terrific. I’d been to Cuba before, but I’d never really experienced the depth of spirituality there.
The 2019 General Conference reaffirmed what we had affirmed the four years preceding but it turned into a shouting match. As you know, the Western Jurisdiction publicly announced that it was not going to abide by what we had decided. The bishops had come to the General Conference divided themselves.
Are you optimistic about the future?
I’m excited about the Global Methodist Church because I believe it is a great expression of revival. I think the structures are too great and the interest groups are too firmly established in the United Methodist Church. It could be a fresh start for everybody. It will give us an opportunity to really be serious about how we, as a body, are going to preach and teach and experience the Holy Spirit.
I believe we’re going to have a demonstrable revival.
Steve Beard is the editor of Good News. All of us at Good News are grateful for the Christian witness of our friend Maxie Dunnam. Photo: Anthony Thaxton. Used by permission.Maxie Du
by Steve | Mar 9, 1994 | Uncategorized
The Cult of Sophia
By William R. Cannon
March/April 1994
The cult of Sophia is the strangest phenomenon to arise in the church in this generation. In many ways it is reminiscent of the “God is Dead” movement of 30 or more years ago. There is, however, one major difference between the two. The “God is Dead” movement was confined to the works of less than half a dozen religious philosophers and was limited to academic circles. It never got off college and university campuses. It had no influence whatsoever in the life of the church or society in general. It was short-lived, lasting little more than a year, so that one might say it was dead almost as soon as it was born. In contrast, the cult of Sophia is more general in its manner of expression, appealing to the popular rather than to the academic mind. It is not limited to literary and oral exposition but is accompanied by rites and ceremonies, bringing with it an agenda for worship, a program for action, and its own ministry and mission. Its purpose is enhance the value of women in society, and its manner of doing this is to project feminism onto ultimate reality or to enshrine womanhood as such in the very nature of the Godhead itself.
The Sophia cult gained attention through Wisdom’s Feast: Sophia in Study and Celebration, a book written by two United Methodist ministers and a Roman Catholic in 1988. It provides liturgies and services of worship to Sophia. One such service was conducted in the chapel of the Theology School of Drew University, as a substitute – so we have read in news reports – for Holy Communion. It would appear, therefore, that the present day Sophia cult is prominently promulgated by some pastors of the United Methodist Church.
It is further assumed that they got their justification for the worship of Sophia from a series of ancient gnostic manuscripts discovered in upper Egypt in 1945. We have known of Gnosticism long before this discovery was ever made through the writings of the Fathers of the Church, as early as the Second Century, when Gnosticism was declared a heresy and its adherents were expelled from the Church. These manuscripts provide no new information, though one of them may well be the writings of Valentinus, the most important of the gnostics.
The promulgators of present-day Sophia worship claim that they are using Sophia as just another name for God, and they do this in order to show that there is a female side to God and that God must no longer be referred to by male names and images alone. From a historical point of view, the name Sophia is a very unfortunate choice. Ancient Gnosticism did not depict wisdom in either the Greek or the Hebrew meaning of the word, or as we understand wisdom today. Sophia was a clever, mischievous, misguided, and misplaced entity at the very end of the chain of emanations. She produced the demiurge, who at her behest, created a world so evil that God had to send help in the form of another emanation named Jesus to rescue us from it and return us through knowledge (gnosis) to an ordered existence. The whole gnostic system was a tapestry of speculation, fantasy, and mythology, with no basis in fact and history. And the same seems to be true of present-day Sophia worship. Those who promote it offer their own thoughts and theories as truth and, as did the gnostics of old, substitute their beliefs for the New Testament account of the nature of Christianity.
In contrast to all other religions which advance teachings or the thoughts and opinions of their founders, Christianity rests on the mighty acts of God in history. It is a religion of fact which antedates and creates faith. It begins with a babe in a manger in Bethlehem, focuses on a teacher and performer of miracles in Galilee, points to an old rugged cross, and a man dying on it, and culminates with an empty tomb in a garden outside Jerusalem and a Savior risen from the dead. Christianity rests on history, not ideology.
It is pitiable that a group of feminist enthusiasts within the church find that the only way they can advance the cause of women in this “Ecumenical Decade: Churches in Solidarity with Women” is to modify the doctrine of God to the degree that the feminine principle is made a part of the Godhead. If they only thought through carefully the teachings of Christianity, they would realize that this is unnecessary, even redundant. There is more than enough in the Bible that affirms the importance of women and gives them their opportunity of leadership and creativity in society alongside and equal to that of men. In the Old Testament there are Miriam, Deborah, Naomi, Ruth, and Queen Esther, who serve as role models along with David, Solomon, and the prophets. In the New Testament there are Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist, Mary and Martha, Mary Magdalene, Lydia, and Priscilla, all of whom either played an important role in the earthly ministry of Jesus or else joined and supported the apostle Paul in the formation of the Church. Except for our divine Lord himself, there is no person in the Bible more significant than the Virgin Mary. It was through her, a woman, that the incarnation took place. It was Mary, a woman, who was the mother of the Incarnate God. Mary said of herself in the Magnificat, .. All generations will call me blessed, for the mighty one has done great things for me” (Luke 1:48-49). It is not possible to conceive a position more noble than that of the Virgin Mary – a woman – mother of Christ.
There is not a single instance to be found in the Bible where the name Sophia is used as a female name for God. To be sure, Wisdom is personified by the use of the feminine gender in chapters 7-10 of the Book of Proverbs, but this is purely a literary device used to enhance the value of wisdom and its importance in the conduct of life. Never is wisdom in those passages equated with God. On the contrary, wisdom is equated with us. Our marriage to wisdom and her marriage to us is essential to our success and happiness in life.
Since this Sophia cult appears to offer a service to Sophia as a substitute for Holy Communion, in which milk and honey take the place of bread and wine, this act contradicts history. When God became human in Jesus of Nazareth, he took the form of a man, not a woman. No matter how one feels or how intensely one wishes it might have been otherwise, it is impossible to alter history. Historically speaking, we cannot transpose the principle work of Jesus on to someone else. We cannot change Jesus of Nazareth into Sophia.
When any person or group of persons, male or female, exalts its own interests and values above everything else, especially to the extent of trying to alter the concept of reality to suit its own aims – then that person or group of persons collapses into idolatry, worshipping self and class rather than God. They are described correctly by the pre-Socratic philosopher who said, “If horses and oxen had hands, they would make God in their own image.” This is precisely what the adherents of Sophia have done. These extreme feminists have made for themselves an idol and they call that idol God. Without knowing it, they are worshipping themselves.
Christianity rests on God’s own disclosure to us. It cannot tolerate our projection of ourselves on to God. We are bound, body and soul, to the teachings of the Bible. One dares not add to or subtract anything from those teachings. St. Augustine deals succinctly with this matter when he writes: “If you believe what you like, and reject what you dislike in the Gospel, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourselves.”
William R. Cannon is a retired bishop of the United Methodist Church, former dean of Candler School of Theology, former chairman of the executive committee of the World Methodist Council, and author of 14 books.
Bishop Hunt Addresses Sophia
UMNS
Recent efforts by some Christians to fuse worship of “Sophia” with Christianity is nothing more than an “attempt to reconstitute the godhead,” a heresy that “staggers the religious mind,” said UM Bishop Earl G. Hunt at the January meeting of the Congress on Evangelism.
“No comparable heresy has appeared in the church in the last 15 centuries,” observed the retired bishop from Lake Junaluska, North Carolina.
“When the church seems to be losing its struggle with powers and principalities, weird things begin to happen,” he told the convention of more than 1,000 lay people and clergy.
Bishop Hunt called the current interest in Sophia ” a weird prostitution of the Eastern Orthodox idea of Saint Sophia” and said that “this is material which must be eradicated from Christian thinking now.” He called upon his fellow bishops to deal with the heresy “forthrightly and firmly.”
In a list In a list of steps that could be taken to renew the denomination, Hunt said that the church must be “cleansed of heresies old and new.”
He warned that “one of the danger signs is that church leaders, in effect, have declared ours to be a post-heresy age” in which almost anything can be construed as “Christian.”
Hunt said emergence of such trends signals a need for a “deep and sweeping change, a radical transformation” across the denomination.
Bishop Hunt is president of the Foundation for Evangelism, which raises money to fund evangelism professorships at United Methodist seminaries.
Adapted from United Methodist News Service.
by Steve | Jul 9, 1991 | Archive - 1991
Not by Water Alone: On Baptismal Regeneration
By Bishop William R. Cannon
July/August 1991
Although the Committee to Study Baptism has yet to issue its final statement, the working document should cause grave concern in our church. The fact that it has been adopted, at least in principle, by the committee over the strong protest of Bishop Ole Borgen, a Wesleyan scholar of renown, and has elicited a negative critique by eminent UM theologian Thomas Langford, who is also a member of the committee, should prompt our Board of Discipleship to be alert to any of its doctrinal deviations before recommending its conclusions to General Conference.
The first restrictive rule in the Constitution of the United Methodist Church states: “The General Conference shall not revoke, alter, or change our Articles of Religion or establish any new standards or rules of doctrine contrary to our present existing and established standards of doctrine.” Though no open attack has been launched against this rule and no doctrine has been formally introduced to contravene our Wesleyan standards, we have whittled away at our theology with a hodgepodge of beliefs and practices that dilute, if not outright contradict, our Methodist doctrine. We have done this through our liturgies, rituals, revision of rites, nomenclature in forms of worship, and in the addition of services and prayers for special events.
The present proposed statement on baptism goes beyond mere implication, however, and becomes a substitute for the Methodist doctrine of conversion and regeneration and, therefore, violates the first restrictive rule.
The report changes the concept of the church from a body of faithful people, dependent on the pure Word of God and the sacraments, into a sacrament itself. The church becomes a place where grace is dispensed through the ceremonial act of baptism, guaranteeing a person full incorporation into the Body of Christ. The paper reads:
“Baptism is Christ’s act in the church, the sacrament of initiation and incorporation into the Body of Christ. Wherever and whenever the people of God are gathered, Christ is in the midst of them (Matthew 18:20), making available all that he has accomplished for us in his life, teachings, passion, death, resurrection, glorification, and bestowal of the Holy Spirit” (lines 252-258).
Wesley, in contrast, says a person is incorporated into the Body of Christ, not through the ordinances of the church – baptism included – but through holiness of heart and life. He taught that,
“The church is called holy because it is holy, because every member thereof is holy, though in different degrees, as He that called them is holy if this whole body be animated by one spirit, and endued with one faith, and one hope of their calling: then he who has not that spirit, and faith, and hope, is no member of that body. It follows that not only … none that lives in outward sin, but none that is under the power of anger or pride, no lover of the world, in a word, none that is dead to God, can be a member of His Church.”(1)
To be sure, the act of justification takes place when a sinner accepts Jesus Christ as Savior, is forgiven by God, and accounted righteous for Christ’s sake. But, in Wesleyan theology, simultaneous with justification comes regeneration, or conversion, in which the person is actually made righteous and is given the power not to commit sin. Justification and regeneration are concomitant – two sides of the same coin.
The committee’s report also affirms baptismal regeneration:
“God bestows upon all baptized persons the presence of the Holy Spirit, marks them with a seal, and implants in their hearts the first installment of their inheritance as sons and daughters of God … Baptism is a gift of God. By water and the Holy Spirit we are initiated into Christ’s holy church and incorporated into God’s mighty acts of salvation” (lines 203-206; 138- 141).
The report continues: “Being born again is not something added to baptism; it is a baptismal experience, a part of the process of turning from sin and turning to God” (lines 322-24).
Wesley denies this. He categorically states that baptism is not the new birth: They are not one and the same thing …. For what can be more plain than that one is external, the other an internal, work: that the one is a visible, the other an invisible thing, and therefore wholly different from each other? – the one being an act of man purifying the body; the other change wrought by God in the soul, so that the former is just as distinguishable from the latter as the soul from the body, or water from the Holy Ghost. From the preceding reflections we may observe that as the new birth is not the same thing with baptism, soil does not always accompany baptism. They do not constantly go together. A man may possibly be ‘born of water,’ and yet not be ‘born of the Spirit.’ There may sometimes be the outward sign, where there is no inward grace. (2)
The committee’s report states that signation, or anointing with oil by making the sign of the cross, is appropriate as a part of the act of baptism (lines 444-46). While this practice is acceptable in Roman Catholicism, it has never been the practice in Methodism. Wesley would be horrified at its introduction. He asked,
“But can we think it for the majesty of baptism to have it dressed up like a form of conjuration? .. . And what are the benefits imprinted on the mind by these fantastical ceremonies? Or when is it such benefits arc promised as these arc said to signify? Is it not rather a debasing of it, to have such rites and prayers introduced into it, as signifying that which baptism was never appointed for?(3)
The treatment of infant baptism in the committee’s report keeps within the traditional Methodist teaching and practice. The report does not vary in any way from the viewpoint of Mr. Wesley, who did not deny the possibility of regeneration through the baptism of infants as long as they manifest Christ’s way of life in thought, word, and deed as they developed into adulthood. In that sense, infant baptism anticipates the response of the individual to the call of Christ once they reach the age of accountability. As the report presupposed, this can be, and it is hoped will be, an unbroken outgrowth of infant baptism. Thus, the person will always have felt that he or she has been a vital member of the Body of Christ.
Yet in Wesley’s experience, and more especially in his familiarity with the experience of others, this was seen more in the failure than in the observance. Most of the people he knew sinned away all the benefits of infant baptism. Therefore, that which baptism signified, namely repentance, forgiveness, and the cleansing of the heart and mind with the power to lead a new life, needed to be accomplished anew. Wesley accepted infant baptism as a proper rite in the church but he did not stress its importance or emphasize its practice. He says,
“I tell a sinner, ‘You must be born again.’ ‘No,’ you say, ‘He was born again in baptism. Therefore, he cannot be born again now.’ Alas, what trifling is this! What, if he was then a child of God? He is now manifestly a child of the devil; for the works of his father, he doeth. Therefore, do not play with words. He must go through an entire change of heart. In one not yet baptized, you would call that change, the new birth. In him call it what you will; but remember, meantime, if either he or you die without it, your baptism will be so far from profiting you, that it will greatly increase your damnation.”(4)
Baptism in itself was not of vital concern to John Wesley. The important issue in this regard with him was the new birth or conversion. Consequently we in Methodism celebrate the Aldersgate experience, not the date of John Wesley’s baptism as an infant at Epworth. Luke Tyerman, the most thorough and exhaustive of Wesley’s biographers, does not even record the date of his baptism. He does tell us he was admitted to holy communion for the first time when he was eight years old, his father believing that at that time he was able to understand the meaning of the sacrament and that his childhood devotion entitled him to that privilege. It was his conformity to the transforming reality of which baptism is only the outward sign that led to his invitation to the Lord’s Supper. In my opinion, the open confession of one’s faith in Christ, based on the conscious assurance of forgiveness with strength to lead a new life, and the affirmation of these by joining the church should be the basis for receiving holy Communion, not the act of infant baptism. All persons baptized in infancy should, as is now the practice, be so nurtured in the faith by precept and example that they may come to faith in Jesus Christ.
The first Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church, based one the decision of the Christmas Conference of 1784, permitted rebaptism of any who desired it when they experienced conversion and joined the church. The Discipline was published in 1785 and approved by Wesley, who reprinted it in 1786. Charles Wesley actually rebaptized anyone who requested it. Our church has always been a Spirit empowered, evangelical church, never a liturgical, sacramental church. Why countenance a small committee to change our church into something it is not? It has served God and His people well for 200 years. To accept the report of this committee would mean a revision of our theology and ecclesiology.
ENDNOTES
- Sermon LXXIV, 28, Works, Jackson Edition, Vol, VI, p. 400.
- Sermon XLV, iv, 1-2, Works, Jackson Edition, Vol. VI, pp. 70-11.
- Works, Jackson Edition, Vol. X, pp. 115-116.
- Works, Vol. VIII, pp. 48-49.
William R. Cannon is a retired bishop of the United Methodist Church, former dean of Candler School of Theology, former chairman of the executive committee of the World Methodist Council, and author of 14 books. This article is adapted from Challenge, a newspaper published by Ed Robb.